To the editor:
In the Sept. 21 Saturday Column, you rehash Benghazi again, throwing mud at our armed forces and our president. You suggest an immediate response was required. What? Air support was too far away, so our only response could have been retaliatory bombing or “boots on the ground.” Are you suggesting that? Another Far East conflict?
You imply that our president does not tell the truth. As Mitt Romney discovered in the debate, he did call it an act of terror. Did you forget? And to call him a liar … does Geroge W. Bush and WMD in Iraq ring a bell with you? Where were your castigations then?
You suggest Putin has come out of this looking like more of a leader with vision and boldness than our leader. Do you really believe that President Obama’s diplomatic efforts and threat of force had nothing to do with Putin’s surrendering to the inevitable need for Syria to give up their WMD? I, personally, prefer our leader over a former KGB colonel violating human rights and reducing gays and lesbians to subhuman status.
Does Putin’s invading of the sovereign country of Georgia make him a man of boldness and vision? I think not.
Lastly, does it really matter who seems to get the “credit” for what appears, at this moment, to be a major breakthrough? Do you really think the global community holds Putin in esteem? Are folks emigrating to or away from Russia?